CRIMINAL CASE NO. 191 OF 2011
COURT: On 6 September last year police were keeping watch on a residence which had been leased to you. When you emerged from the residence you were intercepted and taken back in there, where a quantity of equipment and chemicals were located.
The Government Chemist subsequently analysed the substances and inspected the equipment found, and it was his view, which you have accepted, that there had been efforts made towards the manufacture eventually of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
When you were interviewed by the police you indicated that you had been provided with the formula, a copy of the formula having been found in the flat, by somebody in Shenzhen, and that you had followed that formula, which you told the police was to produce ephedrine, which would then be supplied to the person in Shenzhen for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine hydrochloride.
It seems to me, with all due respect, improbable that you were going to be supplying ephedrine, given the equipment and the chemicals found in the flat, as well as the presence of quantities of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Be that as it may, I do not think that that materially affects the question of sentence.
The Government Chemist has been unable to determine how much methamphetamine hydrochloride would have been produced using the equipment and raw chemicals that were found in your flat. He did indicate, however, that the fact that such small quantities of “Ice” were present showed that the reaction vessels had not been correctly set up and the reaction had not properly been carried out, which resulted in the poor yield of methamphetamine.
It is said on your behalf that you were an amateur chemist; you knew nothing about chemical processes, and you took up this occupation in an attempt to earn some money, having been unemployed for some while. Whilst I accept that, there is no evidence before me as to how much “Ice” would have been produced. It seems to me that this is a relatively straightforward process, and on a trial and error basis, even though it might not have produced much by this stage, it was only a matter of time before you started to do so.
In any event, the quantity of drugs involved is, for the purposes of this particular offence, not the most material aspect for the court to consider. Consequently, I do not think it is a handicap for me not knowing the potential amount of drugs that would have been produced.
Now, the courts have been quite clear that the sentence for doing an act preparatory to the manufacture of dangerous drugs should be not too dissimilar from actual manufacturing itself. “Sentences for manufacturing and for an act preparatory to manufacturing should not be very much different” is what was said by the then Chief Justice in Attorney-General v Woo Kwai Fong and others, and that approach has been followed.
Subsequently, the Court of Appeal has said that for manufacturing dangerous drugs, starting points of between 15 and 25 years after trial are appropriate, and in Shum Koon Lam the court also expressed there that the sentence for doing an act preparatory should be similar.
It seems to me that in the circumstances of this case, the appropriate starting point would be one of 15 years’ imprisonment, and you are entitled, for your early plea, to a reduction of one-third from that starting point.
I do note that you have two previous convictions involving drugs, but neither of them as in respect of the present offence. I do not think that you have yet reached the stage where your previous similar convictions exacerbate the sentence for this particular offence.
There is nothing further available to you as mitigation, either in the commission of the offence or in your personal circumstances.
Consequently, you are to serve 10 years’ imprisonment.